Hi all, Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/confirm this). Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries. So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful. Any concerns, objections? Cheers, Ralf P.S. the same proposal applies of course also to scipy
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/confirm this).
Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries.
So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful.
I am not sure one can use 10.6 SDK on 10.8 ? I am actually looking into those issues for our mac support at Enthought Are you here for euroscipy ? David
Any concerns, objections?
Cheers, Ralf
P.S. the same proposal applies of course also to scipy
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
You can use the 10.6 SDK on 10.8. At least we do. Tom On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:17, "David Cournapeau" <cournape@gmail.com<mailto:cournape@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com<mailto:ralf.gommers@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/ confirm this). Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries. So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful. I am not sure one can use 10.6 SDK on 10.8 ? I am actually looking into those issues for our mac support at Enthought Are you here for euroscipy ? David Any concerns, objections? Cheers, Ralf P.S. the same proposal applies of course also to scipy _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org<mailto:NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org<mailto:NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not one of the named recipients or have received this email in error, (i) you should not read, disclose, or copy it, (ii) please notify sender of your receipt by reply email and delete this email and all attachments, (iii) Dassault Systemes does not accept or assume any liability or responsibility for any use of or reliance on this email. For other languages, go to http://www.3ds.com/terms/email-disclaimer
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, KACVINSKY Tom <Tom.KACVINSKY@3ds.com>wrote:
You can use the 10.6 SDK on 10.8. At least we do.
With which compiler ? David
Tom
On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:17, "David Cournapeau" <cournape@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/ confirm this).
Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries.
So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful.
I am not sure one can use 10.6 SDK on 10.8 ? I am actually looking into those issues for our mac support at Enthought
Are you here for euroscipy ?
David
Any concerns, objections?
Cheers, Ralf
P.S. the same proposal applies of course also to scipy
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not one of the named recipients or have received this email in error,
(i) you should not read, disclose, or copy it,
(ii) please notify sender of your receipt by reply email and delete this email and all attachments,
(iii) Dassault Systemes does not accept or assume any liability or responsibility for any use of or reliance on this email.
For other languages, go to http://www.3ds.com/terms/email-disclaimer
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
llvm-gcc. You have to specify the right options which I can look up tomorrow when I'm back in the office. We don't invoke gcc directly, we use xcrun. On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:31, "David Cournapeau" <cournape@gmail.com<mailto:cournape@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, KACVINSKY Tom <Tom.KACVINSKY@3ds.com<mailto:Tom.KACVINSKY@3ds.com>> wrote: You can use the 10.6 SDK on 10.8. At least we do. With which compiler ? David Tom On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:17, "David Cournapeau" <cournape@gmail.com<mailto:cournape@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com<mailto:ralf.gommers@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/ confirm this). Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries. So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful. I am not sure one can use 10.6 SDK on 10.8 ? I am actually looking into those issues for our mac support at Enthought Are you here for euroscipy ? David Any concerns, objections? Cheers, Ralf P.S. the same proposal applies of course also to scipy _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org<mailto:NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org<mailto:NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not one of the named recipients or have received this email in error, (i) you should not read, disclose, or copy it, (ii) please notify sender of your receipt by reply email and delete this email and all attachments, (iii) Dassault Systemes does not accept or assume any liability or responsibility for any use of or reliance on this email. For other languages, go to http://www.3ds.com/terms/email-disclaimer _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org<mailto:NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org<mailto:NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not one of the named recipients or have received this email in error, (i) you should not read, disclose, or copy it, (ii) please notify sender of your receipt by reply email and delete this email and all attachments, (iii) Dassault Systemes does not accept or assume any liability or responsibility for any use of or reliance on this email. For other languages, go to http://www.3ds.com/terms/email-disclaimer
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:35 PM, KACVINSKY Tom <Tom.KACVINSKY@3ds.com>wrote:
llvm-gcc. You have to specify the right options which I can look up tomorrow when I'm back in the office. We don't invoke gcc directly, we use xcrun.
On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:31, "David Cournapeau" <cournape@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, KACVINSKY Tom <Tom.KACVINSKY@3ds.com>wrote:
You can use the 10.6 SDK on 10.8. At least we do.
With which compiler ?
David
Tom
On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:17, "David Cournapeau" <cournape@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/ confirm this).
Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries.
So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful.
I am not sure one can use 10.6 SDK on 10.8 ? I am actually looking into those issues for our mac support at Enthought
Are you here for euroscipy ?
David
Any concerns, objections?
Cheers, Ralf
P.S. the same proposal applies of course also to scipy
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not one of the named recipients or have received this email in error,
(i) you should not read, disclose, or copy it,
(ii) please notify sender of your receipt by reply email and delete this email and all attachments,
(iii) Dassault Systemes does not accept or assume any liability or responsibility for any use of or reliance on this email.
For other languages, go to http://www.3ds.com/terms/email-disclaimer
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not one of the named recipients or have received this email in error,
(i) you should not read, disclose, or copy it,
(ii) please notify sender of your receipt by reply email and delete this email and all attachments,
(iii) Dassault Systemes does not accept or assume any liability or responsibility for any use of or reliance on this email.
For other languages, go to http://www.3ds.com/terms/email-disclaimer
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
This would be an appropriate time I suppose to say I am attempting to build numpy, scipy and matplotlib on 10.9. NDA of course prohibits me (unfortunately) from really discussing things but safe to say I would support "moving on". There are a multitude of issues that would be resolved by dropping support for PPC (build complexity) and supporting SDKs versions > 10.6. Kyle
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Kyle Mandli <kyle.mandli@gmail.com> wrote:
This would be an appropriate time I suppose to say I am attempting to build numpy, scipy and matplotlib on 10.9. NDA of course prohibits me (unfortunately) from really discussing things but safe to say I would support "moving on". There are a multitude of issues that would be resolved by dropping support for PPC (build complexity) and supporting SDKs versions > 10.6.
I don't think dropping anything will help you with building on 10.9. Unless you're trying to replicate the numpy binaries? There's now two builds: 1. 10.5+, universal binary, 32bit Intel + PPC 2. 10.6+, universal binary, 32bit Intel + 64bit Intel You need the latter, so dropping the former doesn't really make a difference. You also don't need to worry about getting your binary to run on 10.6-10.8 I guess, so you're left with: 3. 10.9 universal binary, 32bit Intel + 64bit Intel We're not going to drop the 32-bit part of that build, so nothing changes for building for yourself on recent OS X's. Ralf
From: numpy-discussion-bounces@scipy.org [mailto:numpy-discussion-bounces@scipy.org] On Behalf Of Kyle Mandli Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:10 PM To: Discussion of Numerical Python Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] OS X binaries for releases On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:35 PM, KACVINSKY Tom <Tom.KACVINSKY@3ds.com<mailto:Tom.KACVINSKY@3ds.com>> wrote: llvm-gcc. You have to specify the right options which I can look up tomorrow when I'm back in the office. We don't invoke gcc directly, we use xcrun. On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:31, "David Cournapeau" <cournape@gmail.com<mailto:cournape@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, KACVINSKY Tom <Tom.KACVINSKY@3ds.com<mailto:Tom.KACVINSKY@3ds.com>> wrote: You can use the 10.6 SDK on 10.8. At least we do. With which compiler ? David Tom On Aug 20, 2013, at 18:17, "David Cournapeau" <cournape@gmail.com<mailto:cournape@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com<mailto:ralf.gommers@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/ confirm this). Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries. So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful. I am not sure one can use 10.6 SDK on 10.8 ? I am actually looking into those issues for our mac support at Enthought Are you here for euroscipy ? David Any concerns, objections? Cheers, Ralf P.S. the same proposal applies of course also to scipy _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org<mailto:NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org<mailto:NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not one of the named recipients or have received this email in error, (i) you should not read, disclose, or copy it, (ii) please notify sender of your receipt by reply email and delete this email and all attachments, (iii) Dassault Systemes does not accept or assume any liability or responsibility for any use of or reliance on this email. For other languages, go to http://www.3ds.com/terms/email-disclaimer _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org<mailto:NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org<mailto:NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not one of the named recipients or have received this email in error, (i) you should not read, disclose, or copy it, (ii) please notify sender of your receipt by reply email and delete this email and all attachments, (iii) Dassault Systemes does not accept or assume any liability or responsibility for any use of or reliance on this email. For other languages, go to http://www.3ds.com/terms/email-disclaimer _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org<mailto:NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion This would be an appropriate time I suppose to say I am attempting to build numpy, scipy and matplotlib on 10.9. NDA of course prohibits me (unfortunately) from really discussing things but safe to say I would support "moving on". There are a multitude of issues that would be resolved by dropping support for PPC (build complexity) and supporting SDKs versions > 10.6. Kyle My bad. I am using Xcode 4.5.2, and the only SDKs installed are the 10.7 and 10.8 SDKs. So I don't know if it is possible to build with the 10.6 SDK (unless there is an option ot install the 10.6 SDK from within Xcode). Anyway, this is what we use to get the 10.7 SDK: For compiling: /usr/bin/xcrun --sdk macosx10.7 --run llvm-gcc -c -m64 -fPIC -- this gives 64 bit builds, I am guessing adding -m32 will give you 32 bit builds. For Linking: /usr/bin/xcrun --sdk macosx10.7 --run llvm-gcc -flat_namespace -dynamiclib -headerpad_max_install_names -install_name <library name here> -m64 -mmacosx-version-min=10.6 I think the -mmacos-version option is crucial, as there were some change in the Mach-O format starting with 10.5/6. Tom This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not one of the named recipients or have received this email in error, (i) you should not read, disclose, or copy it, (ii) please notify sender of your receipt by reply email and delete this email and all attachments, (iii) Dassault Systemes does not accept or assume any liability or responsibility for any use of or reliance on this email. For other languages, go to http://www.3ds.com/terms/email-disclaimer
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:17 AM, David Cournapeau <cournape@gmail.com>wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/ confirm this).
Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries.
So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful.
I am not sure one can use 10.6 SDK on 10.8 ? I am actually looking into those issues for our mac support at Enthought
Are you here for euroscipy ?
Yes, I'll be there from tomorrow till Sunday. Ralf
Ralf, Thanks for doing all this!
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming.
It sure would be nice to clean that up. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still
provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/ confirm this).
Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries.
Adding 2.6 is not a huge deal, but I agree -- what's the point? And it really is time to drop PPC an 10.5, though I'd be interested to see if anyone IS still using it.
So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful.
haven't tried it yet, but it should be doable -- if a pain and a laudable goal.
Any concerns, objections?
nope -- good plan. Note that I am trying to unify some of this binary building -- the same techniques used for matplotlib and useful for other packages, too (numpy/scipy for sure), but also PIL, netCDF, who knows what? I'll post here when I get a little further and there is something for others to look at and/or contribute to. -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov
In article <CABL7CQjaCXp2GrtT8HVmaYAjRm0xmtn1Qt71WKdnbGq7dLU0cQ@mail.gmail.com>, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/confirm this).
Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries.
So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful.
Any concerns, objections?
I am in strong agreement. I'll be interested to learn how you make binary installers for python 3.x because the standard version of bdist_mpkg will not do it. I have heard of two other projects (forks or variants of bdist_mpkg) that will, but I have no idea of either is supported. I have been able to building packages on 10.8 using MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.6 that will run on 10.6, so it will probably work. However I have run into several odd problems over the years building a binary installer on a newer system only to find it won't work on older systems for various reasons. Thus my personal recommendation is that you build on 10.6 if you want an installer that reliably works for 10.6 and later. I keep an older computer around for this reason. In fact that is one good reason to drop support for ancient operating systems and PPC. -- Russell
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen <rowen@uw.edu> wrote:
I'll be interested to learn how you make binary installers for python 3.x because the standard version of bdist_mpkg will not do it. I have heard of two other projects (forks or variants of bdist_mpkg) that will, but I have no idea of either is supported.
Ideally -- we go to binary wheels -- but don't know if the world is ready for that.
I have been able to building packages on 10.8 using MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.6 that will run on 10.6, so it will probably work. However I have run into several odd problems over the years building a binary installer on a newer system only to find it won't work on older systems for various reasons. Thus my personal recommendation is that you build on 10.6 if you want an installer that reliably works for 10.6 and later.
That is the easiest and most robust, for sure. And you can also keep that system "clean" -- i.e. no libfreetypes around to acidentally link to... -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov
Hi, On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen <rowen@uw.edu> wrote:
In article <CABL7CQjaCXp2GrtT8HVmaYAjRm0xmtn1Qt71WKdnbGq7dLU0cQ@mail.gmail.com>, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/confirm this).
Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries.
So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful.
Any concerns, objections?
I am in strong agreement.
I'll be interested to learn how you make binary installers for python 3.x because the standard version of bdist_mpkg will not do it. I have heard of two other projects (forks or variants of bdist_mpkg) that will, but I have no idea of either is supported.
I think I'm the owner of one of the forks; I supporting it, but I should certainly make a release soon too.
I have been able to building packages on 10.8 using MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.6 that will run on 10.6, so it will probably work. However I have run into several odd problems over the years building a binary installer on a newer system only to find it won't work on older systems for various reasons. Thus my personal recommendation is that you build on 10.6 if you want an installer that reliably works for 10.6 and later. I keep an older computer around for this reason. In fact that is one good reason to drop support for ancient operating systems and PPC.
I'm sitting next to a 10.6 machine you are welcome to use; just let me know, I'll give you login access. Cheers, Matthew
In article <CAH6Pt5o32Otdhk2Ms5Cy5Zo=Mn48H8X2WbsWK92etUb4MmrooQ@mail.gmail.com>, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen <rowen@uw.edu> wrote:
In article <CABL7CQjaCXp2GrtT8HVmaYAjRm0xmtn1Qt71WKdnbGq7dLU0cQ@mail.gmail.com>, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/confirm this).
Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries.
So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful.
Any concerns, objections?
I am in strong agreement.
I'll be interested to learn how you make binary installers for python 3.x because the standard version of bdist_mpkg will not do it. I have heard of two other projects (forks or variants of bdist_mpkg) that will, but I have no idea of either is supported.
I think I'm the owner of one of the forks; I supporting it, but I should certainly make a release soon too.
That sounds promising. Can you suggest a non-released commit that is stable enough to try, or should we wait for a release? Also, is there a way to combine multiple packages into one binary installer? (matplotib used to include python-dateutil, pytz and six, but 1.3 does not).
I have been able to building packages on 10.8 using MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.6 that will run on 10.6, so it will probably work. However I have run into several odd problems over the years building a binary installer on a newer system only to find it won't work on older systems for various reasons. Thus my personal recommendation is that you build on 10.6 if you want an installer that reliably works for 10.6 and later. I keep an older computer around for this reason. In fact that is one good reason to drop support for ancient operating systems and PPC.
I'm sitting next to a 10.6 machine you are welcome to use; just let me know, I'll give you login access.
Thank you. Personally I keep an older laptop I keep around that can run 10.6 (and even 10.4 and 10.5, which was handy when I made binaries that supported 10.3.9 and later -- no need for that these days), so I don't need it, but somebody else working on matplotlib binaries might. -- Russell
Hi, On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Russell E. Owen <rowen@uw.edu> wrote:
In article <CAH6Pt5o32Otdhk2Ms5Cy5Zo=Mn48H8X2WbsWK92etUb4MmrooQ@mail.gmail.com>, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen <rowen@uw.edu> wrote:
In article <CABL7CQjaCXp2GrtT8HVmaYAjRm0xmtn1Qt71WKdnbGq7dLU0cQ@mail.gmail.com>, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/confirm this).
Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries.
So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful.
Any concerns, objections?
I am in strong agreement.
I'll be interested to learn how you make binary installers for python 3.x because the standard version of bdist_mpkg will not do it. I have heard of two other projects (forks or variants of bdist_mpkg) that will, but I have no idea of either is supported.
I think I'm the owner of one of the forks; I supporting it, but I should certainly make a release soon too.
That sounds promising. Can you suggest a non-released commit that is stable enough to try, or should we wait for a release?
It has hardly changed since the Python 3 port - the current head should be fine, I'm using it for our installers. But I will get to a release soon.
Also, is there a way to combine multiple packages into one binary installer? (matplotib used to include python-dateutil, pytz and six, but 1.3 does not).
Well - yes - by hacking. I did something like this to make huge scientific python installer for a course I'm teaching: https://github.com/matthew-brett/reginald Basically, you build the mpkg files for each thing you want to install, then copy the sub-packages from the mpkg into a mpkg megapackage (see the README for what I mean). I should really automate this better - it was pretty easy to build a large and useful distribution this way. Cheers, Matthew
Hi, On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Russell E. Owen <rowen@uw.edu> wrote:
In article <CAH6Pt5o32Otdhk2Ms5Cy5Zo=Mn48H8X2WbsWK92etUb4MmrooQ@mail.gmail.com>, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen <rowen@uw.edu> wrote:
In article <CABL7CQjaCXp2GrtT8HVmaYAjRm0xmtn1Qt71WKdnbGq7dLU0cQ@mail.gmail.com>, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do this anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/confirm this).
Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries.
So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful.
Any concerns, objections?
I am in strong agreement.
I'll be interested to learn how you make binary installers for python 3.x because the standard version of bdist_mpkg will not do it. I have heard of two other projects (forks or variants of bdist_mpkg) that will, but I have no idea of either is supported.
I think I'm the owner of one of the forks; I supporting it, but I should certainly make a release soon too.
That sounds promising. Can you suggest a non-released commit that is stable enough to try, or should we wait for a release?
It has hardly changed since the Python 3 port - the current head should be fine, I'm using it for our installers. But I will get to a release soon.
I did a release : https://pypi.python.org/pypi/bdist_mpkg/ Please let me know if you hit any problems... Cheers, Matthew
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi,
In article <CABL7CQjaCXp2GrtT8HVmaYAjRm0xmtn1Qt71WKdnbGq7dLU0cQ@mail.gmail.com>, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Building binaries for releases is currently quite complex and time-consuming. For OS X we need two different machines, because we still provide binaries for OS X 10.5 and PPC machines. I propose to not do
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Russell E. Owen <rowen@uw.edu> wrote: this
anymore. It doesn't mean we completely drop support for 10.5 and PPC, just that we don't produce binaries. PPC was phased out in 2006 and OS X 10.6 came out in 2009, so there can't be a lot of demand for it (and the download stats at http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.7.1/confirm this).
Furthermore I propose to not provide 2.6 binaries anymore. Downloads of 2.6 OS X binaries were <5% of the 2.7 ones. We did the same with 2.4 for a long time - support it but no binaries.
So what we'd have left at the moment is only the 64-bit/32-bit universal binary for 10.6 and up. What we finally need to add is 3.x OS X binaries. We can make an attempt to build these on 10.8 - since we have access to a hosted 10.8 Mac Mini it would allow all devs to easily do a release (leaving aside the Windows issue). If anyone has tried the 10.6 SDK on 10.8 and knows if it actually works, that would be helpful.
Any concerns, objections?
I am in strong agreement.
I'll be interested to learn how you make binary installers for python 3.x because the standard version of bdist_mpkg will not do it. I have heard of two other projects (forks or variants of bdist_mpkg) that will, but I have no idea of either is supported.
I think I'm the owner of one of the forks; I supporting it, but I should certainly make a release soon too.
I have been able to building packages on 10.8 using MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.6 that will run on 10.6, so it will probably work. However I have run into several odd problems over the years building a binary installer on a newer system only to find it won't work on older systems for various reasons. Thus my personal recommendation is that you build on 10.6 if you want an installer that reliably works for 10.6 and later.
That has been my experience as well, unfortunately. I was just willing to try again with 10.8 --> 10.6.
I keep an older computer around for this reason. In fact
that is one good reason to drop support for ancient operating systems and PPC.
I'm sitting next to a 10.6 machine you are welcome to use; just let me know, I'll give you login access.
I have a 10.6 machine as well, so for me it's not an issue. The aim is to make it easy for others to build binaries, and there's a hosted 10.8 machine available to use for all numpy/scipy devs. Ralf
participants (7)
-
Chris Barker - NOAA Federal -
David Cournapeau -
KACVINSKY Tom -
Kyle Mandli -
Matthew Brett -
Ralf Gommers -
Russell E. Owen